Yes, while some have expressed considerable doubts about CIA reports that the Russians attempted to help Trump, Brownyn Bishop is in no doubt that it was the “socialists” who are behind Sussan Ley’s troubles.
Personally, I’m inclined to believe the CIA in this case because, if there’s one thing that the CIA should be an expert on, it’s interfering in elections. I know that saying that I believe the CIA leaves me open to attack and that someone will suggest that I’m niave and a supporter of Hillary. Just as I’m sure that if I say that I think Donald Trump actually did “mock” that disabled reporter, someone will point out that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and how can I criticise Trump when America has such a terrible past.
So I’ve decided to move on from Trump for two reasons. The first is that any criticise of Trump seems to taken as an endorsement of his opponents. The second is that I’m worried that he may catch wind of me and respond by calling me “over-rated” and other nasty names and I’m a very sensitive guy. I’ve noticed that Trump still uses Twitter to attack to anyone who says anything bad about him. In fact, the only people he’s positive about are his supporters and Putin.
Anyway I was quite taken aback to discover that the “socialists” in Australia were still so powerful. As Bronwyn Bishop said:
“… I do know that there are socialists out there who want to attack free enterprise and anyone who sticks up for it. And I know that socialists, like alcoholics, will blame anyone but themselves. And whereas alcoholics can damage their own families, socialists can destroy the whole country.”
Now, as well as her renowned impulse purchase, Ms Ley – as Assistant Minister for Education – apparently had a couple of trips on New Year’s Eve to discuss the jobs network with Sarina Russo, a Liberal donor who runs Jobs Access, a training provider. Nothing suss in that. Why wouldn’t a busy woman feel it necessary to meet with the Assistant Minister during her gala party. I wonder if they took minutes…
Bronwyn Bishop went on to tell us that we should wait for the inquiry before rushing to any conclusions, because “I was within the rules, she was within the rules.”
So if I have this straight, the ex-Minister for Kerosene Baths lectures us that we shouldn’t jump to any conclusions because – without knowing any of the details – she can assure us that Ms. Ley was “within the rules” and it was the socialists who had brought her down. I also inferred that Bronny thought that the socialists may have had some role in her demise, too, although I was struck by the irony that she implied that it was the staff who made travel arrangements and that it’d be their fault if there was some problem.
Of course, this leaves the question of who are these socialists of which she speaks? How do we identify these “enemies of the people”? Right, well, Bronwyn listed three things: 1.They are responsible for her having to stand down as Speaker. 2. They never take any responsibility prefering to blame others. 3. They attack free enterprise.
Mm, well, I thought that it was Tony Abbott who asked her to stand down and it was Malcolm “Empty” Turnbull who didn’t put her in his new ministry. And it was the Liberal Party who failed to endorse her in the last election. Surely she’s not accusing them of being socialists!
But wait, she told us a couple of times that the socialists blame everybody but themselves. Didn’t Tony and Joe Hockey (remember him?) persistently blame Labor for their inability to get the Budget back in surplus. Actually, come to think of it, they blamed Labor for just about everything. And Malcolm has continued with this strategy, taking it to whole new heights with his election night speech where he not only blamed Labor for his poor showing, but also suggested that maybe they’d get the AFP in to investigate fraud over their campaign. Apparently, he was dissuaded from going down that path when it was pointed out that Labor might retaliate and they had a much better case because the Liberals had been fraudulently claiming that Malcolm was a leader.
So the first two boxes are ticked. But free enterprise? My understanding of free enterprise is that things are primarily left to the market with little government control.
We could conclude that the socialists were the current government if it wasn’t for the fact that they’re right behind “free enterprise”…
Except for wind farms. They’re ugly and unsightly. They certainly shouldn’t be subsidised. Not like fossil fuels which attract government help, because they’re “good for humanity”. Actually that doesn’t sound to free enterprisy!
Come to think of it, opposition to marriage equality is the sort of governmnet control that’s stopping a whole new market. Think of all the business same sex marriages would generate. Preventing seems pretty totalitarian to any true believer in the laissez-faire system.
And asylum seekers! How often have we heard the Liberals tell us that they were determined to “smash the people smugglers’ businsess model”? Yes, that’s the very antithesis of a free enterprise government. Indeed, they’re whole policy on people coming here by boat is the exact opposite to their policy on Health, where they encourage people to jump the queue by having private health insurance. Unfortunately, even their Health policy has socialist elements because they subsidise those with private health insurance.
All three boxes ticked. Yep, Bronny’s right. These socialists are ruining the whole country.
Help Support The AIMN
Please consider making a donation to support The AIMN and independent journalism.